HOFMANN v. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES et al - Document No. 12

Published on May 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 23 | Comments: 0 | Views: 223
of 6
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

HOFMANN v. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES et al

Doc. 12

Case 2:06-cv-01252-MAM

Document 12

Filed 06/09/2006

Page 1 of 6

MATTIONI, LTD. BY: Faustino Mattioni George R. Zacharkow Identification No. 13167 and 32816 399 Market Street, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 629-1600 Attorneys for Defendant Delaware North Companies UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ____________________________________ JOY HOFFMAN : Plaintiff : v. : PHILADELPHIA EAGLES : FOOTBALL CLUB, EAGLES : STADIUM OPERATOR, LLC, : SPORTSERVICE CORPORATION, : DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES : AND PENN SPORTSERVICE, INC. : Defendants : ____________________________________:

Civil Action No.: 06-1252

DEFENDANT, DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES’ ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-CLAIMS Defendant, Delaware North Companies, by and through their attorneys, Mattioni, Ltd., hereby responds to Defendants’ Cross-Claims, upon information and belief, as follows: FIRST CROSS-CLAIM 1. Answering Defendant incorporates their Answer, including Affirmative Defenses,

to the averments contained in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 2. To the extent that the averments incorporated in this paragraph are conclusions of

law, no response is required under the Rules, as they are deemed denied. To the extent a response may be required, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient

U : \ D o c s \g r z \ D e l a w a r e N o r t h -- H o f f m a n \ D N C A n s w e r t o C r o s s- C l a i m s 6 - -7 - - 0 6 . w p d

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-01252-MAM

Document 12

Filed 06/09/2006

Page 2 of 6

to form a belief as to the truth of the averments incorporated in this paragraph and, therefore, they are deemed denied. 3. Denied as to Answering Defendant. By way of further answer, Answering

Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are deemed denied. 4. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no

response is required under the Rules, as they are deemed denied. To the extent a response may be required, the averments regarding Answering Defendant are denied. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are deemed denied. 5. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no

response is required under the Rules, as they are deemed denied. To the extent a response may be required, the averments regarding Answering Defendant are denied. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Delaware North Companies, demands that Defendants’ Cross-Claim against them be dismissed with prejudice, and that they be awarded such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. SECOND CROSS-CLAIM This Cross-Claim is not directed against Answering Defendant and, accordingly, no response is required. To the extent a response may be required, Answering Defendant

U : \ D o c s \g r z \ D e l a w a r e N o r t h -- H o f f m a n \ D N C A n s w e r t o C r o s s- C l a i m s 6 - -7 - - 0 6 . w p d

2

Case 2:06-cv-01252-MAM

Document 12

Filed 06/09/2006

Page 3 of 6

incorporates their Answer, including Affirmative Defenses, to the averments contained in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, as well as their Answer to the First Cross-Claim, as if fully set forth herein. To the extent that the averments contained in this Cross-Claim are conclusions of law no response is required under the Rules, as they are deemed denied. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in this Cross-Claim and, therefore, they are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Delaware North Companies, demands that Defendants’ Cross-Claim against them be dismissed with prejudice, and that they be awarded such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. THIRD CROSS-CLAIM 1. Answering Defendant incorporates their Answer, including Affirmative Defenses,

to the averments contained in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, as well as their Answer to the First Cross-Claim, as if fully set forth herein. 2. Answering Defendant admits that a copy of the License and Concession

Agreement entered between Eagles Stadium Operator LLC and Penn Sportservice, Inc. on April 30, 2002, regarding services to be provided at Lincoln Financial Field, is attached as Exhibit A, which being a writing, speaks for itself and must be read in its entirety. 3. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no

response is required under the Rules, as they are deemed denied. By way of further answer, the only parties to the License and Concession Agreement attached as Exhibit A are Eagles Stadium Operator LLC and Penn Sportservice, Inc.; neither Delaware North Companies, nor Sportservice Corporation are parties to the Agreement, or have any obligations under the Agreement.

U : \ D o c s \g r z \ D e l a w a r e N o r t h -- H o f f m a n \ D N C A n s w e r t o C r o s s- C l a i m s 6 - -7 - - 0 6 . w p d

3

Case 2:06-cv-01252-MAM

Document 12

Filed 06/09/2006

Page 4 of 6

Defendants claim is frivolous within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and should be withdrawn before sanctions are requested. 4. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to

which no response is required under the Rules, as they are deemed denied. By way of further answer, the only parties to the License and Concession Agreement attached as Exhibit A are Eagles Stadium Operator LLC and Penn Sportservice, Inc.; neither Delaware North Companies, nor Sportservice Corporation are parties to the Agreement, or have any obligations under the Agreement. Defendants claim is frivolous within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and should be withdrawn before sanctions are requested. 5. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to

which no response is required under the Rules, as they are deemed denied. By way of further answer, the only parties to the License and Concession Agreement attached as Exhibit A are Eagles Stadium Operator LLC and Penn Sportservice, Inc.; neither Delaware North Companies, nor Sportservice Corporation are parties to the Agreement, or have any obligations under the Agreement. Defendants claim is frivolous within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and should be withdrawn before sanctions are requested. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Delaware North Companies, demands that Defendants’ Cross-Claim against them be dismissed with prejudice, and that they be awarded such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. 2. Delaware North Companies is not a proper party to this action. The claims against Delaware North Companies are frivolous and should be

dismissed immediately to avoid Rule 11 sanctions.

U : \ D o c s \g r z \ D e l a w a r e N o r t h -- H o f f m a n \ D N C A n s w e r t o C r o s s- C l a i m s 6 - -7 - - 0 6 . w p d

4

Case 2:06-cv-01252-MAM

Document 12

Filed 06/09/2006

Page 5 of 6

3.

Defendants have failed to state claims or causes of action upon which relief may

be granted against Answering Defendant. 4. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference the applicable defenses asserted

by the other parties in this action. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Delaware North Companies, demands that Defendants’ Cross-Claim against them be dismissed with prejudice, and that they be awarded such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate. MATTIONI, LTD

BY:

s/ George R. Zacharkow Faustino Mattioni George R. Zacharkow

Dated: June 9, 2006

U : \ D o c s \g r z \ D e l a w a r e N o r t h -- H o f f m a n \ D N C A n s w e r t o C r o s s- C l a i m s 6 - -7 - - 0 6 . w p d

5

Case 2:06-cv-01252-MAM

Document 12

Filed 06/09/2006

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, George R. Zacharkow, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Delaware North Companies’ Answer to Defendants’ Cross-Claims, was served electronically and via first class mail on June 9, 2006 to the following attorneys:

Daniel S. Sweetser, Esquire Lozier, Lazzaro & Sweetser, PC 4065 Quakerbridge Road, Suite 102 Princeton Junction, New Jersey 08550 John E. Tyrrell, Esquire Hollstein Keating Eight Penn Center 1628 JFK Blvd., Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103

s/ George R. Zacharkow

Dated: June 9, 2006

U : \ D o c s \g r z \ D e l a w a r e N o r t h -- H o f f m a n \ D N C A n s w e r t o C r o s s- C l a i m s 6 - -7 - - 0 6 . w p d

6

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close